Explanatory note

The Ontario Government is releasing past SIU Director Reports (submitted to the Attorney General prior to May 2017) that include fatalities involving a firearm, physical altercation, and/or use of conducted energy weapon, or other extensive police interaction that did not result in a criminal charge.

Justice Michael H. Tulloch made recommendations about the release of past SIU Director Reports in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review, released on April 6, 2017.

Justice Tulloch explained that since past reports were not originally drafted for public release they may have to be edited substantially to protect sensitive information. He took into account that confidentiality assurances were given to various witnesses during the course of SIU investigations, and recommended that some information be redacted in the interests of privacy, safety, and security.

As recommended by Justice Tulloch, this explanatory note is being provided to assist the reader’s understanding of why certain information is redacted in these reports. Notes have also been inserted throughout the reports to help describe the nature of the information that was redacted and why it was redacted.

Law enforcement and personal privacy information considerations

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act (FIPPA) (relating to law enforcement information), portions of these reports have been removed to protect:

  • confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by the SIU
  • information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 21 of FIPPA (relating to personal privacy information), personal information, including sensitive personal information, has also been redacted, except that which is necessary to explain the rationale for the Director’s decision. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • subject officer name(s)
  • witness officer name(s)
  • civilian witness name(s)
  • location information
  • other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation, including in relation to children
  • witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence

Personal health information

Information related to the personal health of individuals that is unrelated to the Director’s decision (taking into consideration the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004) has been redacted.

Other proceedings, processes, and investigations

Information may have also been excluded from these reports because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.

Director’s report

Notification of the SIU

On Monday, October 27, 2008, at 1131 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Kingston Police Service (KPS) notified the SIU of Deceased’s death.

Notifying Officer reported that on October 2, 2008, Subject Officer and Witness Officer #5 responded to Deceased's apartment building at the request of the building superintendent, Civilian Witness #1, to check on Deceased. Civilian Witness #1 told the officers that Deceased had mental health issues and had become more reclusive to the point that he was delivering food to her. The officers forced Deceased's door and found her lying naked on the floor. The officers spoke with Deceased, who said she was okay and told them to leave. They left the apartment without taking any action.

The officers filed a report and sent it to the Mental Health Liaison detective. Upon receiving the report on October 3, Mental Health Liaison Officer #1 and Mental Health Liaison Officer #2 went to Deceased’s apartment to check on her condition. After obtaining background information from Civilian Witness #1, they entered Deceased's apartment and found her lying naked, face down on the floor in urine and feces, and unable to move. An ambulance was summoned. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attendants discovered Deceased’s eyes and lips were swollen and infected. Deceased said she had been lying on the floor for three days. The detectives searched the apartment and did not find any food. Deceased was taken to hospital and at 1324 hrs, went into cardiac arrest, but was revived. Deceased remained in hospital until her death on October 11, 2008.

Because of the inaction taken by the initial responding officers, Mental Health Liaison Officer #1 brought this incident to the attention to Witness Officer #3. Witness Officer #3 notified the Coroner and provided background information about the situation. The Coroner seized Deceased’s embalmed body from the funeral home and

ordered a post mortem examination (PM). No anatomical cause of death was determined at the PM.

After Notifying Officer learned of the incident, he obtained reports and spoke with detectives involved. Notifying Officer met with the Chief to discuss commencing an internal investigation into the entire handling of the situation and to recommend that the SIU be notified. The Chief directed that SIU be notified.

The investigation

On Monday, October 27, 2008, at 1430 hrs, two SIU investigators were assigned and immediately commenced an investigation. The investigators met with Notifying Officer at KPS headquarters at 1010 hrs, on Tuesday October 28, 2008. Witnesses were interviewed and the incident scene was video taped, measured, and photographed. Scale Drawings were prepared.

Subject Officer was designated as a subject officer. He exercised his legal rights under the Police Services Actand declined to be interviewed

The following officers were designated as witness officers. They supplied copies of their notes and were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Mental Health Liaison Officer #1 (October 29, 2008)
  • Mental Health Liaison Officer #2 (October 29, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #1 (October 29, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #2 (October 29, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #3 (November 12, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #4 (November 12, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #5 (November 12, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #6 (November 12, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #7 (November 13, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #8 (November 13, 2008)
  • Witness Officer #9 (November 13, 2008)

SIU investigators received and reviewed the following materials from the KPS:

  • incident report
  • Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) report
  • KPS General Orders regarding Dealing with Mental Health Patients, and
  • KPS Orders regarding Notification of SIU

The following civilian witnesses were interviewed on the dates indicated:

  • Civilian Witness #1 (October 29, 2008), and
  • Civilian Witness #2 (November 13, 2008)

Confidential witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence (Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations)

Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act

In my view, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the named subject officer, Subject Officer, committed a criminal offence with respect to the incident involving the decedent, Deceased. The only relevant section of the Criminal Code is s. 215 making it a criminal offence to not provide the necessaries of life. Those necessaries can

include medical aid. However, because Deceased was not in the custody, care or control of the subject officer, the correlative duty to provide necessaries of life was not engaged.

The following paragraph is included in the letter to the Chief:

Having said there was no legal duty to intervene and assist Deceased, there was a stark professional one to do so. The subject officer saw Deceased in a state of extreme distress; she was lying naked face down on the floor of her bedroom surrounded by her own urine and feces. She clearly lived alone. Subject Officer had to know that he had the power to apprehend her under the Mental Health Act, as being a danger to herself. Instead, he did nothing except file a report. I trust this issue of inaction by the subject officer in the face of overwhelming evidence of an individual in desperate need for medical assistance will be addressed in the s.11 investigation.

Date: December 19, 2008

Original signed by

Ian Scott
Director
Special Investigations Unit